I'm Kelsey Hayes, and I approve this message.

I certainly do. :-)

i was somewhat puzzled that kelsey didn't include my comment in the main body of her original piece. after all, the UDK has such a rich and stalwart tradition of mimicking pop culture, it seems that omitting this new catch phrase would be a very serious faux pas indeed. i am certainly relieved, and indescribably proud, that kelsey and i could quash this oversight before the brunt of online readers logged on.

Yeah, and somebody make sure IronCladFistMeanFaceMcPooPoo head (did that break the rules) reads this. That guy sucks. (Did that break the rules?) You know it's true.

In the spirit of civil discourse, I want to say, "Kelsey Hayes is a Colombian drug lord!" But since that would be libelous (or is it slanderous?), I'll just say, "Kelsey Hayes could very well be a Colombian drug lord!"
Seriously, though, good job, Kelsey. I hope some of the worst offenders get this memo.

This coming from the same group that produced sex on the hill. Pot meet kettle.

Sex on the Hill has already been addressed. Any reader who feels strongly about Sex on the Hill has the ability to respond to the Kansan, and we have published several people's opinions on it. It goes back to what I said above: We value readers' opinions, but we expect reciprocity and for users to respect our user policy.

However one feels about Sex on the Hill, it does not give any user on Kansan.com free reign to make some of the comments that have been made in the past week. If you can't see that distinction, I apologize. And if Sex on the Hill bothers you that much, feel free to write us about it.

Because I am sure that a bunch of people writing you about it will fix it right? Let me lay out the course of events as they will proceed.

1. Put out a graphic sex on the hill where you can test and see just how much we will really put up with. You discover that.

2. Next sex on the hill will be worse than the one previous to the graphic one but not as bad as the graphic one.

3. Sex on the Hill slowly gets more and more graphic to the point where no one even cares because the UDK has done a typical job of desensitizing all students at KU.

4. Within 5 years there will be a picture of a naked woman in sex on the hill, maybe not completely but it will become an issue of playboy. I can guarentee it.

This is the problem with our culture today. You have gotten to the point where there is ZERO shock value anymore. However, when people get upset about it all you do is respond with an EXCEPTIONALLY hollow apology that doesn't apologize for the images themselves but the fact they were in a WWII monument. And that makes it ok? The fact that a newspaper is basically producing porn but apologizes makes it ok? That is truly sad.

Whats even worse is that I would be absolutely shocked if anything changes because of the letters sent to the UDK. Your paper has become an absolute joke it the matter of a week. Its sad really.

If Sex on the Hill bothers you that much, don't read it. Don't frequent the businesses that advertise in it. For that matter, don't even talk about it; you dislike it so much that you're giving it what amounts to more free press. That's your prerogative. If you dislike the Kansan, you're free to not pick it up and to not frequent the Web site. That's the beauty of the First Amendment. If you dislike what something says or promotes, you're free to dissociate yourself from it.

I'm curious to know if you have any righteous indignation about the "Rip his *expletive* head off!" chant that occurs multiple times during each and every home football game in a WWI memorial stadium. Or is the outrage only about sex? You could argue a free speech point, to which I respond: What then is Sex on the Hill?

Regardless, my original point stands: How anyone feels about Sex on the Hill is their own business. It still does not give anyone on this site the license to violate the site's user policy by posting racism, obscenity or hate speech. That was the intent of this letter, to address what the Web staff sees as a growing problem with abuse of the commenting function. It should be about discourse, including debating Sex on the Hill. What it is turning into is a free for all of insults and epithets.

And my point is that you are proclaiming free speech in one instance...sex on the hill. And limiting it in another stance. You have to choose a side. I agree with your article above and will never nor have I post racist or sexist remarks on the kansan website. I just find it ironic that you think sex on the hill is ok but you get all upset when people express their free speech.

As for the rip his f***ing head off chant I have never nor will I ever join in that chant. I think it shows a lack of class by our student section and should go away.

I think sex on the hill is an increasing problem and things like it. That was my point, you can't have it both ways.

Fair point, except that Kansan.com is under the ownership and operation of the newspaper. We're technically under no obligation to allow comments of any kind; we choose to do so to foster debate on the site and in the newspaper. While a user is on the site, they are still subject to our policies. Our policies were set up to encourage civility.

I'm not sure if you've ever taken a First Amendment course (journalism students at KU are required to), but I also feel obligated to point out that many types of speech are not protected, including libel. There's a misconception that anyone can say anything that they want at any time. And even when your speech is protected, you're still responsible for it. The Kansan staff has taken and will continue to take full responsibility for what is published in the newspaper, including Sex on the Hill.

Fair enough. I appreciate your response.

Sometimes I can't tell whether or not the Kansan is a newspaper or toilet paper.....

Here's my issue, I can choose not to read it, but I still have to pay for it, any advice on how to fix that?

You pay taxes don't you? Student fees pay for services for the entire public to use. The Kansan is one of those public services. If everyone got to pick and choose what they paid for, we'd have a lot fewer nice things at this University, with an award-winning nationally-recognized newspaper being one of them. Even if some content isn't viewed by the readers as what they want to read, there is still a lot of people who pick up the paper every day. It's the main source of news for a lot of our students. That's what the Kansan is here for. That's what the staff prides themselves in doing every day, they come in and can say to themselves "good or bad, I am judged on what is put in this paper". If readers don't like it, the staff moves on and tries to do something else that the readers will like. It's a never ending cycle.

Sjschlag,

You rarely have anything good to say about KU. Whether it be Student Senate, the UDK, athletics or the chancellor, you just can't seem to find anything positive to comment on.

It's quite easy to look at the work of others and be critical, but I'm beginning to think that's the only thing you're capable of doing. Please prove me wrong and provide comments more constructive than "toilet paper" analogies. It just lowers the level of debate.

We have debate? But seriously, if you don't want people to speak their minds, just disable commenting. We'll all go back to FARK and 4chan, and you'll never see us again.

Anyone else notice that the sex on the Hill Issue is not online anymore? If it is, they hid it really well, because it's not where it was before. Any Editors care to comment?

And yes, I pay taxes. That doesn't mean I don't fight them through my Senate and blinly roll over and pay them. I fight the government funding things I don't agree they should. I also fight certain taxes, like the food sales tax, which hurt those that we collect taxes to "help" the hardest. I don't think I should have to pay for a paper I don't want to read that is not fair, only presents those arguements that agree with their own. Sex on the HIll in point, got enough response to get the editor to write a half-apology (more of a list of excuses) but not enough to present one of the "bad responses" in the paper. Only those that agree with the editors get printed. "You can have your opinion as long as it agrees with mine"

I think that issue was totally offensive, not because you displayed a tasteless issue on sex, but because you defaced a War memorial. Next year, why (not just have sex in the middle of Arlington National Cemetary?) But, that's ok, it didn't offend the editors. Nor was it "obscene" by their definition apparently.

cath0830:

if you read the opinion page you will see several responses criticizing sex on the hill. we even published a cartoon someone took the time to draw. please try reading the newspaper before blindly criticizing it.

if you want to write a letter we will gladly publish it, as long as it is discusses things civilly.

You mean the article about why sex is no longer private? Didn't really discuss the WWII issue at all, actually.

No, I mean the cartoon on the sept. 29 issue in the opinion page.

we run letters to the editor. we've probably ran all the ones we received regarding this issue. Maybe that is telling of something.

"we've probably ran all the ones we received regarding this issue"

So, one cartoon prompted the Editor to issue a front page "apology" regarding the pictures on the Campanile?